GILLES PRONOVOST E O FUTURO DA SOCIOLOGIA DO LAZER: ENTREVISTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The text brings an interview with Gilles Pronovost, made through emails about his main themes: leisure, social times, work, family and culture. In order to understand the meaning of Gilles Pronovost in the sociology of leisure, it is enough to remember that for Joffre Dumazedier, the most suitable country for a Brazilian researcher to start in the study of leisure was not France, his country, nor the United States, where he said he had remade his old academic formation in Letters, becoming sociologist, working with Lazarsfeld and Riesman, but the Quebec. He said that in this Canadian province, francophone but with strong ties with the surrounding anglophone community, leisure studies have the singularity of seeking a synthesis between European "humanism" and anglosaxon "pragmatism" and did not hesitate to highlight the protagonism of Gilles Pronovost, for his studies and the creation and direction of the Laboratory of Social Times of the University of Québecà-Trois-Rivières and the bilingual magazine Loisir $ Société / Leisure $ Society. After Dumazedier's death, he joined Geoffrey Godbye in the USA, Robert Stebins in Canada, Chris Rojek in the United Kingdom, Lallive d'Pierpinay in Switzerland, Roger Sue and Jean Viard in France, in the gallery of leading leisure sociologists nowadays.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".